Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1531-9

BRIEF REPORT

The comparison process as an account of variation in the attraction,

compromise, and similarity effects
Andrea M. Cataldo 1 & Andrew L. Cohen 1

# Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Abstract
Context effects are changes in preference that occur when alternatives are added to a choice set. Models that account for context
effects typically assume a within-dimension comparison process; however, the presentation format of a choice set can influence
comparison strategies. The present study jointly tests the influence of presentation format on the attraction, compromise, and
similarity effects in a within-subjects design. Participants completed a series of choices designed to elicit each of the three context
effects, with either a by-alternative or by-dimension format. Whereas the by-alternative format elicited a standard similarity
effect, but null attraction and reverse compromise effects, the by-dimension format elicited standard attraction and compromise
effects, but a reverse similarity effect. These novel results are supported by a re-analysis of the eye-tracking data collected by
Noguchi and Stewart (Cognition, 132(1), 44–56, 2014) and demonstrate that flexibility in the comparison process should be
incorporated into theories of preferential choice.

Keywords Context effects . Attraction effect . Compromise effect . Similarity effect . Information presentation format

Introduction increases preference for Apartment X relative to Apartment

Preferential choice scenarios, such as choosing an apartment,
restaurant, or laptop, are ubiquitous. An important collection
of results demonstrates that adding an alternative to a choice
set can change preferences among the original alternatives.
The attraction, compromise, and similarity effects are three
well-studied examples of these Bcontext effects.^ To demon-
strate, consider the scenario of choosing between apartments
that vary in their rated size and location (Fig. 1). Assuming
both dimensions are equally important, a choice between
Apartments X and Y would be difficult – whereas
Apartment X rates well on location, but poorly on size, the
reverse is true for Apartment Y. The attraction effect (Huber,
Payne, & Puto, 1982) is when the availability of Apartment
AX, which is similar to, but dominated by, Apartment X,
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1531-9) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
* Andrea M. Cataldo
amcataldo@psych.umass.edu
1
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
Y. The compromise effect (Simonson, 1989) is when the avail-
ability of Apartment CX increases preference for Apartment
X, which now has intermediate values on both dimensions,
relative to Apartment Y. The similarity effect (Tversky, 1972)
is the finding that the availability of Apartment SX, which is
similar to, but not dominated by, Apartment Y, increases pref-
erence for Apartment X relative to Apartment Y.
These effects serve as central examples of how the decision
process deviates from rationality (e.g., Roe, Busemeyer, &
Townsend, 2001) and are therefore often used as theoretical
benchmarks. Indeed, many computational models of prefer-
ential choice strive to account for all three effects simulta-
neously (Bhatia, 2013; Noguchi & Stewart, 2018; Roe et al.,
2001; Trueblood, Brown, & Heathcote, 2014; Usher &
McClelland, 2004). Behavioral data, however, suggest that
this constraint may be premature (Trueblood, Brown, &
Heathcote, 2015). For example, a number of studies have
found the attraction and compromise effects to be positively
correlated with each other but negatively correlated with the
similarity effect (Berkowitsch, Scheibehenne, & Rieskamp,
2014; Liew, Howe, & Little, 2016; Trueblood et al., 2015).
Further, it is not simply the case that particular effects do or do
not occur in different scenarios (e.g., Frederick, Lee, &
Baskin, 2014; Huber, Payne, & Puto, 2014); rather, the

Fig. 1 Each label represents the dimension values of an apartment.
Subscripts denote the apartment from the base pair X and Y targeted by
the decoy. The presented ratings are for the 3 EV condition. The precise
(Size, Location) stimulus values were as follows: X = (2.5, 3.5), Y = (3.5,
2.5), AX = (2.25, 3.25), AY = (3.25, 2.25), CX = (1.5, 4.5), CY = (4.5, 1.5),
SX = (3.75, 2.25), SY = (2.25, 3.75). For the 2 EV condition, all ratings
were one unit lower
occurrence of reversed effects suggests a more diverse land-
scape of context-dependent choice (Cataldo & Cohen, 2018;
Spektor, Kellen, & Hotaling, 2018). Thus, it is important for
theories of preferential choice to consider how context effects
co-vary and what factors influence their presence, absence, or
reversal.
The processes underlying context effects have been a cen-
tral point of debate between theories of preferential choice;
however, there is evidence to suggest that the information-
acquisition process may play a primary role. Most recent
models assume that choice information is compared between
alternatives within a single dimension (Bhatia, 2013; Noguchi
& Stewart, 2018; Roe et al., 2001; Trueblood et al., 2014;
Usher & McClelland, 2004; Wollschläger & Diederich,
2012). Work by Chang and Liu (2008) and Cataldo and
Cohen (2018), however, suggests the need to consider a more
flexible process. These studies show that differences in pre-
sentation format (Bettman & Kakkar, 1977; Biehal &
Chakravarti, 1982) can modulate context effects, implicating
the information-acquisition process. Specifically, whereas the
compromise effect is facilitated by a format encouraging
within-dimension comparisons and impeded by a format en-
couraging within-alternative comparisons (Chang & Liu,
2008), the opposite is found for the similarity effect (Cataldo
& Cohen, 2018). Together, these studies suggest that a flexible
comparison process may be a key mechanism underlying the
correlations between context effects (Berkowitsch et al., 2014;
Psychon Bull Rev
Trueblood et al., 2015) and individual differences (Liew et al.,
2016) by differentially highlighting dimension-level (e.g.,
extremeness and dominance; Simonson, 1989) and
alternative-level (e.g., dimension dispersion; Chernev, 2004,
2005) stimulus characteristics.
The present research targets a flexible comparison process
as a critical mechanism driving diversity in context-dependent
choice. To date, the effect of format on the attraction effect has
not been tested. Furthermore, the compromise (Chang & Liu,
2008) and similarity (Cataldo & Cohen, 2018) effects were
tested in two different paradigms with between-subject format
manipulations. We extend previous work by jointly testing the
influence of presentation format on all three context effects in
an entirely within-subjects design. These methodological
changes allow a unified view of the role of the comparison
process in context-dependent choice. The current data also
allow for response-time analysis, which has not been consid-
ered in this framework.
Following previous work (Cataldo & Cohen, 2018; Chang
& Liu, 2008), we predicted that a by-dimension format would
produce strong compromise and reverse similarity effects, but
that a by-alternative format would produce reverse compro-
mise and strong similarity effects. Given previously observed
correlations between context effects (e.g., Berkowitsch et al.,
2014), we predicted that a by-dimension format would pro-
duce a strong attraction effect, but a by-alternative format
would produce a weakened attraction effect. The data support
these choice predictions. Furthermore, longer response times
in the by-dimension condition suggest a process that requires
greater deliberation. We conclude with a re-analysis of the
eye-tracking data collected by Noguchi and Stewart (2014)
demonstrating that, while the compromise effect is driven by
a greater number of transitions within dimensions, the simi-
larity effect is driven by a greater number of transitions within
alternatives.
Method
Participants
Four-hundred and seventy undergraduates from UMass
Amherst participated for course credit. The sample size was
selected to be larger than that used in past work eliciting si-
multaneous context effects (Berkowitsch et al., 2014; Liew et
al., 2016; Noguchi & Stewart, 2014). Following previous
work (Cataldo & Cohen, 2018), participants were excluded
for failing more than four of 24 catch trials. Thirty-four par-
ticipants were excluded, leaving 436 in the analyses. Separate
analyses including all participants and excluding 198 who
failed any catch trial are provided in the Supplementary
Materials, but yield the same qualitative results.
Psychon Bull Rev
Materials
Each choice set consisted of three apartments varying on size
and location. Every test trial included Apartments X and Y.
The unweighted mean of X and Y were always equivalent;
that is, assuming no dimension bias, X and Y were of equal
overall value. For generalizability, the unweighted mean (EV)
of X and Y was varied (either 2 or 3). The size and location
dimension values in the 3 EV condition are described in Fig.
1, and the 2 EV dimension values are one unit less.1
The third apartment was either AX or AY for the attraction
effect, CX or CY for the compromise effect, and SX or SY for
the similarity effect. These stimuli will be collectively referred
to as decoy stimuli (D). The subscripts index the target alter-
native, i.e., whether adding the decoy is expected to increase
choices for Apartment X or Y. The non-target, non-decoy
alternative will be referred to as the competitor. The distances
from A and S to the nearby alternative were equal and
subjectively selected to be as small as possible while remain-
ing perceptually distinct.
Following Tversky (1972, Task B) and Cataldo and Cohen
(2018), the dimension values were depicted as filled, horizon-
tal bars (see Fig. 2, center panels). The values were goodness-
of-fit ratings, from Bworst for me^ (unfilled) to Bbest for me^
(completely filled). This scale standardizes the dimensions
and minimizes concerns about differences in preferred dimen-
sion directions, e.g., preferring small versus large apartments.
The horizontal length of the bar was determined by multiply-
ing the constant, vertical height of the bar (50 px) by the
dimension rating.
The choice sets were displayed in one of two presentation
formats – by-alternative or by-dimension. Consider the center
panels of Fig. 2. The top and bottom rows show sample stim-
uli in the by-alternative and by-dimension conditions, respec-
tively. In both cases, the ratings are presented as horizontal
bars in a matrix, strongly encouraging comparisons within
columns rather than within rows. In the by-alternative condi-
tion, the columns of the matrix denote alternatives and the
rows denote dimensions, encouraging within-alternative com-
parisons. In the by-dimension condition, the columns denote
dimensions and the rows denote alternatives, encouraging
within-dimension comparisons. The bar lengths were constant
across presentation format conditions. The size dimension
was always presented on the top in the by-alternative condi-
tion and on the left in the by-dimension condition. For each
choice set, participants saw all six possible alternative order-
ings, randomly ordered.
The factors described above were manipulated within-sub-
ject, resulting in 144 test trials for each participant: two target
1
Due to a coding error, 227 participants were dropped from the 3 EV condi-
tion. A separate analysis excluding these participants is provided in the
Supplementary Materials, and yields the same qualitative results.
conditions (DX and DY) by two expected values (2 and 3) by
three contexts (attraction, compromise, and similarity) by two
presentation formats (by-alternative and by-dimension) by six
alternative orderings.
To identify participants who were not sufficiently engaged,
each participant also completed 24 catch trials that included a
dominating apartment, resulting in a total of 168 choices.
Procedure
The trials were blocked by presentation format, with block
order randomized across participants. Participants were told
that the different formats represented different rental maga-
zines. All other factor levels were randomly ordered within
each block.2 Participants were given detailed instructions at
the beginning of each block, including the meaning of the
dimensions, a description of the rating scale, and a preview
of the presentation format. Participants completed three prac-
tice trials before the test trials. Each response involved a key
press (1, 2, or 3) corresponding to the desired alternative.
Results
Choice
Following Wedell (1991), we measure each context effect as a
comparison between two three-choice scenarios targeting X or
Y. A context effect is obtained if both ΔPX = P(X | X, Y, DX) -
P(X | X, Y, DY) and ΔPY = P(Y | X, Y, DY) - P(Y | X, Y, DX)
are positive. Negative values indicate a reverse effect. The left
panels of Fig. 2 show ΔP for X and Y for each context effect
and presentation format.
Participants in the by-alternative condition (top row) dis-
play a classic similarity effect, but a weak or null attraction
effect and a reversed compromise effect. That is, SX and SY
increase preference for the target, but AX and AY have little
effect on choice proportions, and CX and CY actually decrease
preference for the target.
In perfect contrast, participants in the by-dimension condi-
tion (bottom row) display classic attraction and compromise
effects, but a reversed similarity effect. That is, whereas AX,
AY, CX, and CY increase preference for the target, SX and SY
decrease preference for the target.
A hierarchical Bayesian conditional logistic regression
model was used to test for differences in choice proportions
across target, EV, context, and presentation format conditions.
Details of the model are provided in the Supplemental
2
Participants who viewed the by-dimension format second exhibited a weak-
ened effect. The Supplementary Materials include further discussion and anal-
ysis of this result. These analyses yield the same critical interactions as the full
data set.
 Psychon Bull Rev

Fig. 2 Left: Mean differences in overall choice proportions for
Alternatives X and Y in attraction, compromise, and similarity choice
sets, when choice information is grouped by alternatives (top) and by
dimensions (bottom). Error bars are between-subject standard errors.
Middle: Sample stimuli depicting an apartment choice set grouped by
alternatives (top) and by dimensions (bottom). In this example,
Apartments 1, 2, and 3 correspond to Apartments X, Y, and AX in Fig.
1, respectively. Right: Mean response times broken down by target (X or
Y) in attraction, compromise, and similarity choice sets, when choice
information is grouped by alternatives (top) and by dimensions (bottom)

Material. Inferences are made by calculating the 95% highest
density interval (HDI) around the mean of the posterior esti-
mated choice proportions for a given condition. A difference
between conditions is indicated by non-overlapping HDIs.
Consider the posterior estimates and HDIs for choice pro-
portions provided in Table 1. First, as previewed above, the
attraction decoy was selected least often. Second, there was a
preference for X over Y, suggesting a bias for location. Third,
there was no effect of expected value; thus, we collapse across
expected value in all following analyses.
Next, we use this model to address which context effects
were present. The estimated choice proportions and HDIs for
ΔPX and ΔPY are provided in Table 2, broken down by con-
text and format. The null attraction effect, reverse compromise
effect, and classic similarity effect observed in the by-
alternative condition are all statistically supported. The ΔPX
and ΔPY HDIs for the attraction effect comfortably include
zero. The HDIs for the compromise effect are less than zero,
demonstrating a change in preference towards the competitor.
The HDIs for the similarity effect are greater than zero, dem-
onstrating a change in preference towards the target.
The classic attraction and compromise effects and reverse
similarity effect observed in the by-dimension condition are
both statistically supported. The HDIs for the attraction and
compromise effects are greater than zero, demonstrating a
change in preference towards the target. The HDIs for the
similarity effect are less than zero, indicating a change in pref-
erence towards the competitor.
It is important to note that the HDIs for ΔPX and ΔPY are
greater in the by-dimension condition for the attraction and
compromise effects but greater in the by-alternative condition
for the similarity effect. This result supports the hypothesis
that the attraction and compromise effects are facilitated by a
presentation format that encourages within-dimension com-
parisons but the similarity effect is facilitated by a presentation
format that encourages within-alternative comparisons.
To ensure that the results are not due to averaging, it is
informative to examine the results at the individual participant
level (Berkowitsch et al., 2014; Cataldo & Cohen, 2018; Liew
et al., 2016; Trueblood et al., 2015). Figure 3 summarizes the
co-occurrence of the attraction (A), compromise (C), and sim-
ilarity (S) effects within subjects. For each participant, each

Table 1 Posterior estimates and 95% HDIs for choice proportions by target, expected value (EV), context effect, and presentation format conditions

P(X) P(Y) P(D)

Factor Level M HDI Low HDI High M HDI Low HDI High M HDI Low HDI High
Target X 0.526 0.523 0.531 0.356 0.352 0.359 0.118 0.115 0.120
Y 0.500 0.496 0.504 0.378 0.373 0.381 0.122 0.119 0.125
EV 2 0.513 0.510 0.517 0.370 0.367 0.374 0.117 0.114 0.119
3 0.513 0.509 0.517 0.363 0.360 0.367 0.123 0.120 0.126
Context effect A 0.539 0.534 0.543 0.381 0.377 0.386 0.080 0.077 0.083
C 0.521 0.516 0.525 0.364 0.360 0.369 0.115 0.112 0.118
S 0.480 0.475 0.486 0.355 0.349 0.361 0.165 0.160 0.170
Format By-Alt 0.538 0.534 0.542 0.348 0.344 0.352 0.114 0.111 0.117
By-Dim 0.489 0.484 0.493 0.385 0.381 0.390 0.126 0.123 0.129

Notes: A, C, and S are the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects, respectively
Psychon Bull Rev

Table 2 Posterior estimates and 95% HDIs for ΔPX and ΔPY and their mean, broken down by context and presentation format

ΔPX ΔPY Mean

Presentation Context M HDI Low HDI High M HDI Low HDI High M HDI Low HDI High
Format
By-Alternative A 0.008 -0.003 0.019 0.011 -0.000 0.021 0.009 -0.001 0.019
C -0.017 -0.029 -0.005 -0.015 -0.026 -0.004 -0.016 -0.027 -0.005
S 0.049 0.035 0.062 0.031 0.018 0.043 0.040 0.028 0.052
By-Dimension A 0.111 0.099 0.124 0.095 0.083 0.106 0.103 0.091 0.114
C 0.046 0.034 0.059 0.049 0.036 0.060 0.047 0.035 0.059
S -0.038 -0.053 -0.023 -0.040 -0.054 -0.027 -0.039 -0.052 -0.026

Notes: ΔPX = P(X | X, Y, DX)-P(X | X, Y, DY), ΔPY = P(Y | X, Y, DY)-P(Y | X, Y, DX). A, C, and S are the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects,
respectively

effect was marked present (+) if the average of ΔPX and ΔPY
was greater than 0.04, reversed (-) if the average was less than
0.04, and null (0) otherwise.
The two most frequent response patterns for each presen-
tation format are indicated by darker colors. The individual
subject results are consistent with the group results. In the by-
alternative condition, the modal response patterns included
null or reversed attraction and compromise effects with a clas-
sic similarity effect (A-, C-, S+ or A0, C-, S+). In the by-
dimension condition, there was an especially clear result.
That is, participants were much more likely to display classic
attraction and compromise effects with a reversed similarity
effect (A+, C+, S-). Far less likely was a null attraction effect,
reversed compromise effect, and classic similarity effect (A0,
C-, S+).
Response times
The right panels of Fig. 2 present mean response times corre-
sponding to the conditions presented in the left panels of Fig.

Fig. 3 Co-occurrence of reverse (-), null (0), and classic (+) attraction, compromise, and similarity effects within subjects, when choice information is
grouped by alternatives (top) and by dimensions (bottom). Darker bars indicate the two most frequent categories within each format condition
 Psychon Bull Rev

Table 3 Posterior estimates of mean response times from the Bayesian Furthermore, participants were biased towards making
model, separately broken down by target, expected value (EV), context,
pairwise comparisons within a dimension; however, that bias
and presentation format conditions
was small, suggesting variability across trials.
Factor Level M HDI Low HDI High Our re-analysis partitions the trials by the relative number
of within-dimension and within-alternative transitions.
Target X 3.162 3.141 3.184
Additional details are included in the Supplementary
Y 3.180 3.155 3.203
Materials. If the comparison process affects choice behavior
EV 2 3.227 3.203 3.251
as predicted, as the relative number of within-dimension tran-
3 3.115 3.086 3.141
sitions increases, the attraction and compromise effects should
Context effect A 3.167 3.143 3.194
increase and the similarity effect should decrease. Conversely,
C 3.135 3.105 3.164 as the relative number of within-alternative transitions in-
S 3.212 3.183 3.240 creases, the similarity effect should increase and the attraction
Format By-Alt 2.843 2.820 2.866 and compromise effects should decrease.
By-Dim 3.499 3.470 3.528 Consistent with the original analysis, there was a small bias
Notes: A, C, and S are the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects,
towards within-dimension comparisons. The first row of Fig.
respectively 4 shows the distribution of within-alternative minus within-
dimension transitions for all trials for each context. Positive
2. There is a marked effect of presentation format, such that and negative values correspond to trials including more
responses are much slower in the by-dimension format. There within-alternative and within-dimension eye movements, re-
is also an observable effect of context, such that response spectively. For attraction, compromise, and similarity trials,
times are slowest for similarity choice sets. An individual- there was an average of 1.40, 1.50, and 0.90 more within-
subject analysis of the response-time results is provided in dimension transitions.
the Supplemental Material. These distributions were partitioned into five regions. Each
A hierarchical Bayesian regression model was used to test region is associated with a color ranging from blue (Region 1)
for differences in response times across target, EV, context, to red (Region 5). Region 1 includes trials strongly favoring
and presentation format conditions. Details of the model are within-dimension comparisons and Region 5 includes trials
provided in the supplemental material. Inferences are again strongly favoring within-alternative comparisons. The region
based on the 95% HDIs of a response time in a given condi- criteria (-5, -2, 2, 5) were fixed for all contexts and were
tion. The estimated choice proportions and 95% HDIs for selected to separate the distributions into qualitatively mean-
response times are provided in Table 3. The group differences ingful regions, be symmetric around 0, and keep enough data
described above are statistically supported. That is, the 95% in each region for analysis. Different values were tried with
HDI for mean response times is greater in the by-dimension similar qualitative results. Because we are interested in how
condition than in the by-alternative condition, and greater for the comparison process on a particular trial influences behav-
similarity choice sets than for the attraction and compromise ior, these analyses are at the trial level.
choice sets. The second row of Fig. 4 shows how each context effect
changes as the comparison process changes. The measure of
interest is the relative proportion of target and competitor
Eye tracking: A re-analysis of Noguchi and Stewart choices in each region. Positive values indicate a classic con-
(2014) text effect and negative values indicate a reverse effect.
Although the attraction effect is relatively unchanged, as pre-
The previous analyses provide strong evidence that presenta- dicted, the compromise effect decreases and the similarity
tion format influences context effects. Although these differ- effect increases, even reversing direction, as the proportion
ences imply a switch from a within-dimension to a within- of within-alternative comparisons increases.
alternative comparison process, the evidence is indirect be-
cause the comparison process was not directly measured.
Here, we re-analyze the results of Noguchi and Stewart Fig. 4 Reanalysis of Noguchi and Stewart (2014). Top row: Distribution„
of within-alternative – within-dimension comparisons for each context
(2014) to provide this direct evidence. effect broken into Regions 1–5. Second row: Proportion of target
Similar to the current experiment, participants in Noguchi choices minus proportion of competitor choices within each region for
and Stewart (2014) were asked to select one of three alterna- each context effect; statistics (details are provided in the supplemental
tives from a set designed to elicit an attraction, compromise, or material) are a comparison to Region 1; + p<.10, * p<.05, ** p<.01,
*** p<.001. Bottom three rows: Choice proportions for all data and
similarity effect. Importantly, eye movements were tracked Regions 1 and 5 for the target, competitor, and decoy for each context
during the decision process. The authors found strong attrac- effect. Numbers above points are sample sizes. Each region is associated
tion and compromise effects and a weak similarity effect. with a color ranging from blue (Region 1) to red (Region 5)
Psychon Bull Rev

The final three rows of Fig. 4 show the raw choice propor-
tions for all data (compare to Fig. 5 from Noguchi & Stewart,
2014) and Regions 1 and 5 only. The black circles and white
squares are trials on which A (X from Fig. 1) and B (Y from
Fig. 1) are targets, respectively. An effect is supported if the
black circle is above the white square for A and below the
white square for B. Again, more within-alternative compari-
sons greatly weaken or reverse the compromise effect and
more within-dimension comparisons reverse the similarity
effect.
Discussion
The attraction, compromise, and similarity effects are critical
phenomena in preferential choice that serve as key examples of
how the decision process deviates from rationality (Huber et al.,
1982; Simonson, 1989; Tversky, 1972). Several studies have
found that the attraction and compromise effects tend to be pos-
itively correlated with each other but negatively correlated with
the similarity effect (Berkowitsch et al., 2014; Liew et al., 2016;
Trueblood et al., 2015). Work by Chang and Liu (2008) and
Cataldo and Cohen (2018) suggest that a flexible comparison
process may be a key mechanism underlying these correlations.
Specifically, whereas the compromise effect is facilitated by a
presentation format encouraging within-dimension comparisons
and impeded by a format encouraging within-alternative compar-
isons (Chang & Liu, 2008), the opposite is found for the similar-
ity effect (Cataldo & Cohen, 2018).
The present research extends previous work by jointly testing
the influence of presentation format on the compromise, similar-
ity, and attraction effects with an entirely within-subjects design.
Previous work has only studied the similarity and compromise
effects separately (Cataldo & Cohen, 2018; Chang & Liu, 2008),
and the attraction effect has not been tested at all in this paradigm.
As predicted, a by-alternative presentation format elicited the
standard similarity effect, but weak and reversed attraction and
compromise effects, respectively, whereas a by-dimension pre-
sentation format produced standard attraction and compromise
effects but a reverse similarity effect. These results not only rep-
licate effects found in past work but demonstrate their relation-
ship at the subject level.
The current data also allow for the incorporation of
response-time analyses, which have rarely been considered
in context effects and never in this framework. Interestingly,
longer response times were produced in the by-dimension
condition and the similarity choice sets. The effect of format
likely results from a difference in the number of within-
alternative and within-dimension comparisons. Though not
directly assessed in the current data, a re-analysis of eye-
tracking data collected by Noguchi and Stewart (2014) sup-
ports this interpretation. In their study, the similarity effect
increased and the compromise effect decreased as the
Psychon Bull Rev
proportion of within-alternative transitions increased. The
lack of a significant decrease for the attraction effect differs
from the present work, although we note it is historically a
very robust effect (e.g., Berkowitsch et al., 2014).
The increased response times for similarity choice sets sup-
ports the idea that a different process is associated with this
effect. Indeed, models of preferential choice accounting for all
three effects often assume that the similarity effect is generated
by a distinct mechanism (Bhatia, 2013; Noguchi & Stewart,
2018; Roe et al., 2001; Trueblood et al., 2014; Usher &
McClelland, 2004; Wollschläger & Diederich, 2012). The da-
ta suggest that this assumption is appropriate. Although spec-
ulative, it is even possible that a deliberative process underlies
the attraction and compromise effects, whereas a more heuris-
tic process underlies the similarity effect. In the present data,
although similarity choice sets are associated with increased
response times, a by-alternative format promoting the similar-
ity effect is associated with reduced response times. This idea
is consistent with previous work finding that while the simi-
larity effect can be accounted for by a heuristic model
(Tversky, 1972), the attraction and compromise effects are
inhibited by the use of a lexicographic heuristic (Simonson,
1989). Further research directly testing this account is needed.
Previous researchers have noted that models of preferential
choice can account for the correlation between context effects
seen both here and in prior work (Berkowitsch et al., 2014;
Liew et al., 2016). For example, Roe et al. (2001) state that
Multi-alternative Decision Field Theory (MDFT) predicts a
negative correlation between the attraction and similarity ef-
fects, but a positive correlation between the attraction and
compromise effects. With few exceptions, such modeling
work has almost exclusively considered the presence or ab-
sence of context effects (e.g., Trueblood et al., 2015), but not
whether they can be reversed. Consistent with the current
results, however, Cataldo and Cohen (2018) showed that var-
iations of both the MDFT and Multi-attribute Linear Ballistic
Accumulator (MLBA; Trueblood et al., 2014) predict that a
reverse similarity effect is more likely than a standard similar-
ity effect when the attraction and compromise effects are pres-
ent. To account for the reverse similarity effect, the MDFT
relies on increased forgetting and increased inhibition between
alternatives and the MLBA relies on increased attention to
negative differences of attributes. Although the models can
potentially predict the present results, more work is needed
to determine whether the mechanisms used to do so are psy-
chologically supported. The current research suggests a poten-
tial alternative account in which these effects are driven, in
part, by changes in the comparison process.3 More broadly, it
is important for models of preferential choice to take the
3
A step in that direction is provided by the Associations and Accumulation
Model (Bhatia, 2013), which assumes that attention to attributes varies based
on the available alternatives.
Psychon Bull Rev
pattern of reversals of and correlations between context effects
more seriously, and allowing for diverse comparison styles
may be an effective approach to doing so.
This research provides strong evidence that the comparison
process should be treated with more nuance in theories of
preferential choice. Determining relative values is intuitively
an important mechanism underlying context effects, but evi-
dence suggests that this mechanism may not occur strictly via
within-dimension comparisons. Differential patterns of con-
text effects are produced by modulating the ability to compare
choice information within alternatives or within dimensions.
The theoretical implication from these data is that the compar-
ison process may serve to promote context-dependent choice
as well as the apparent diversity within it. From a practical
standpoint, the data suggest that requiring models to simulta-
neously account for all three effects is an unrealistic and over-
ly simplified constraint.
Author Note Both authors contributed to all aspects of this
work. The data have been made publically available at:
https://osf.io/736db/. The authors are very grateful to Drs.
Noguchi and Stewart for making the data from Noguchi and
Stewart (2014) available.
References
Berkowitsch, N. A. J., Scheibehenne, B., & Rieskamp, J. (2014).
Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against ran-
dom utility models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
143(3), 1331–1348.
Bettman, J. R., & Kakkar, P. (1977). Effects of Information Presentation
Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies. Journal of
Consumer Research, 3(4), 233.
Bhatia, S. (2013). Associations and the accumulation of preference.
Psychological Review, 120(3), 522–543.
Biehal, G., & Chakravarti, D. (1982). Information-Presentation Format
and Learning Goals as Determinants of Consumers’ Memory
Retrieval and Choice Processes. Journal of Consumer Research,
8(4), 431.
Cataldo, A. M., & Cohen, A. L. (2018). Reversing the similarity effect:
The effect of presentation format. Cognition, 175.
Chang, C.-C., & Liu, H.-H. (2008). Which is the compromise option?
Information format and task format as determinants. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 21(1), 59–75.
Chernev, A. (2004). Extremeness Aversion and Attribute-Balance Effects
in Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 249–263.
Chernev, A. (2005). Context Effects without a Context: Attribute Balance
as a Reason for Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 213–
223.
Frederick, S., Lee, L., & Baskin, E. (2014). The Limits of Attraction.
Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 487–507.
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dom-
inated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hy-
pothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90–98.
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. P. (2014). Let’s Be Honest About the
Attraction Effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 520–525.
Liew, S. X., Howe, P. D. L., & Little, D. R. (2016). The appropriacy of
averaging in the study of context effects. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 23(5), 1639–1646.
Noguchi, T., & Stewart, N. (2014). In the attraction, compromise, and
similarity effects, alternatives are repeatedly compared in pairs on
single dimensions. Cognition, 132(1), 44–56.
Noguchi, T., & Stewart, N. (2018). Multialternative decision by sam-
pling: A model of decision making constrained by process data.
Psychological Review, 125(4), 512–544.
Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (2001). Multialternative
decision field theory: A dynamic connectionst model of decision
making. Psychological Review, 108(2), 370–392.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and
compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158–
174.
Spektor, M. S., Kellen, D., & Hotaling, J. M. (2018). When the Good
Looks Bad: An Experimental Exploration of the Repulsion Effect.
Psychological Science, 095679761877904.
Trueblood, J. S., Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2014). The
multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects
in multialternative choice. Psychological Review, 121(2), 179–205.
Trueblood, J. S., Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2015). The fragile nature
of contextual preference reversals: Reply to Tsetsos, Chater, and
Usher. Psychological Review, 122(4), 848–853.
Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice.
Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–299.
Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Loss Aversion and Inhibition in
Dynamical Models of Multialternative Choice. Psychological
Review, 111(3), 757–769.
Wedell, D. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually in-
duced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(4), 767–778.
Wollschläger, L. M., & Diederich, A. (2012). The 2N-ary Choice Tree
Model for N-Alternative Preferential Choice. Frontiers in
Psychology, 3.